4.  The applicants were born in 1936, 1964 and 1969 respectively and live in Sofia.
5.  In 1969 the first applicant’s father bought from the Sofia municipality a four-room flat of 132 square metres, which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in Bulgaria after 1946.
6.  In 1983 the first applicant’s parents conveyed to her the title to that property.
7.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 1993 Ms V., heir of the former pre-nationalisation owner of the property, brought proceedings against the first applicant under section 7 of the Restitution Law, seeking to establish that the contract whereby the first applicant’s father had acquired the flat was null and void. Ms V. also brought a rei vindicatio action against the first applicant and her son, the second applicant. At the time, he was also living in the flat, together with his wife – the third applicant – and her two children.
8.  On 3 October 1995 the Sofia District Court discontinued the proceedings. On 7 February 1996 the Sofia City Court declared inadmissible an appeal against that decision lodged by Ms V. On 9 April 1997 the Supreme Court of Cassation quashed the Sofia City Court’s decision, finding that the lower court had breached the procedural rules. Subsequently, the Sofia City Court remitted the case to the Sofia District Court for examination on the merits.
9.  On 27 October 1999 the Sofia District Court gave a judgment. It found that the contract whereby the first applicant’s father had acquired the disputed property was null and void because the administrative authorities’ decision to sell the flat had not been approved by the Minister of Architecture and Public Works, as required by law at the time, but by another official. Accordingly, the domestic court concluded that the first applicant had not herself acquired ownership and was occupying the flat on an invalid legal ground; on this basis it allowed Ms V.’s rei vindicatio claim and ordered the first and second applicants to vacate the property.
10.  On an unspecified date in the beginning of 2000 the applicants lodged an appeal. On 22 April 2005 the Sofia City Court upheld the above judgment.
11.  Although the City Court’s judgment was not final, it was enforceable and Ms V. instituted enforcement proceedings. In November 2005 the applicants vacated the flat.
12.  In the proceedings under section 7 of the Restitution Law and for rei vindicatio, on 1 June 2007 the Supreme Court of Cassation gave a final judgment, upholding the lower courts’ findings.
13.  In April 2007 the second applicant and his family were granted the tenancy of a municipally-owned apartment at a regulated price. The first applicant also applied for municipal housing, which was refused. Therefore, she moved in with her son’s family.
14.  Soon after the Supreme Court of Cassation’ judgment of 1 June 2007 the first applicant applied to receive compensation bonds. In February 2009 she received bonds for 81,200 Bulgarian levs (BGN), the equivalent of approximately 42,000 euros (EUR), in accordance with a valuation of the property of August 2008 by a certified expert. In July 2009 the first applicant received in cash from the Ministry of Finance the full value of the bonds.
15.  The relevant background facts and domestic law and practice concerning the effect of restitution on third parties and the application of section 7 of the Restitution Law have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01, and 194/02, 15 March 2007.
16.  The relevant domestic law and practice on remedies aimed at accelerating civil proceedings have been summarised in the Court’s judgment in the case of Finger v. Bulgaria, no. 37346/05, §§ 43 and 55, 10 May 2011.